When does a human living being attain legal rights to life?

  • Thread starter Thread starter alitaptap
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
According to US law, at birth. According to the majority of Americans, during gestation.

My wife and I were listening to a Lighthouse Catholic Media CD of Bishop Fulton Sheen who was discussing abortion. In the audio clip, he mentions the frequently heard comment that the ‘fetus is not human;’ his response was, “It cannot be anything but human! Elephants have elephants, lilies have lillies, humans have humans!.” If the child is born a human, it must have been a human the entire time in the womb. If it is a human in the womb, then that human should have legal rights to life.
 
The truth of the matter is that a soul is created immediately upon conception. This means that AS SOON AS the sperm fertilizes the egg a soul is created and the processes begins to allow that egg to develop into a full-matured human being. The fact that they don’t -look- human in no way changes that they ARE human.

People who say otherwise are only looking to justify the genocide of millions of people.
 
Scientifically speaking, an egg becomes human once it is fertilized because it attains both sets of DNA (from mother and father) and becomes whole, and thus at that point is should attain the legal right to life. And in the Church’s view, at that same moment, God creates a soul for that newly created human, and again should then also attain the right to life. This is ideally the case, but people who do not follow the Church’s teachings have their own ideas, some of these ideas are that it is after a certain number of weeks. But murder is murder (killing of a human being by another), and therefore once it is human, it should have the right to life.
 
I’ve heard some people say a fetus should have human rights when it is “viable,” or has the ability to live outside his mother’s womb. That’s a very muddy definition, since the age of viability varies so greatly based on a number of factors.

I think question does a good job at showing how “pro-choice” people really don’t have logic and sound reasoning behind their arguments.
 
According to the MSM when it is wanted. In reality at conception.

I agree with hannajomar this question does show how “pro-choice” has no logic or reasoning.
 
It depends on the country. In the USA it is at birth that a person receives “rights”, although there is grey area in that if a pregnant woman and her developing baby are killed, a double homicide is procecuted.

Recently the law of the Dominican Republic was highlighted since a mother who was receiving cancer treatment could not obtain an exception for an abortion since it is totally banned in that country since a person there receives the right to life at conception.
 
mfrances said:
It depends on the country. In the USA it is at birth that a person receives “rights”, although there is grey area in that if a pregnant woman and her developing baby are killed, a double homicide is procecuted.

Recently the law of the Dominican Republic was highlighted since a mother who was receiving cancer treatment could not obtain an exception for an abortion since it is totally banned in that country since a person there receives the right to life at conception.
Click to expand...
We have stupid answers in the United States. I think the correct answer is that sometimes the US considers a fetus as having legal rights to life and sometimes it does not.

There’s a recent federal law that recognizes the fetus as a victim of a crime only if the fetus is injured or killed during a federal crime. It actually says that a child in utero is a member of our species, no matter the stage of development. If you are killed during a non-federal crime, you have no right to life. (I guess you are sometimes part of the human species and sometimes you are not, depending on whether your cause of death fits one of 60 federal crimes).

Many states don’t recognize the fetus as a separate victim, and simply enhance the penalty for the murder of a pregnant woman. Some of these states will define the fetus as a person for the limited purpose of going after the murderer. If you are killed then, you are granted a right to life, not because you actually had a right to life, but simply to justify longer sentences for the murderer of your mother.

It’s ridiculous.
 
What do people think of the idea that fetus’ should gain the rights not at conception but at implantation in the womb? My ex likes to quote the statistic that over 90% of fertilized eggs do not get implanted. What do people think of this argument?
 
At conception.

epm.org/resources/2010/Mar/8/scientists-attest-life-beginning-conception/

The United States government in the Declaration of Independence tells us we have certain certain rights: “… among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

If the right to life is taken away then no other rights matter for that individual.

Finally, everyone reading this began life as a unique human being at conception.

Peace,
Ed
 
Taestron said:
What do people think of the idea that fetus’ should gain the rights not at conception but at implantation in the womb? My ex likes to quote the statistic that over 90% of fertilized eggs do not get implanted. What do people think of this argument?
Click to expand...
90% would seem to make the human reproductive system very inefficient. I find it hard to believe. 🤷
 
pete_29 said:
90% would seem to make the human reproductive system very inefficient. I find it hard to believe. 🤷
Click to expand...
So do I. I believe the statistic is garnered from examining the artificial insemination process. So I must believe that natural reproduction has a higher rate of implantation.
 
alitaptap said:
Discuss.
Click to expand...
Alitaptap:

That should be easy: it’s the direction of the wind. Lawmakers, particularly those that lick their forefingers and hold them up to the wind, are best able to test the way the wind is blowing. This is very significant to a child’s rights. If the wind is blowing in any direction but that one, there’s no right to life. But this should be obvious.

There is another way. A doctor could simply ask the unborn child to take a step forward if he or she thinks he of she should be allowed to live. Statistically, not one single child that was aborted has ever taken that step.

God bless,
jd
 
hannajomar said:
I think question does a good job at showing how “pro-choice” people really don’t have logic and sound reasoning behind their arguments.
Click to expand...
The impression that I’ve gotten from the people that I’ve spoken to is that some of those that call themselves “pro-life” are not quite as polarized as the description associated with “pro-life.” (Not unusual, since many people that associate themselves with groups or associations pick and choose which of that groups ideas they make their own). The ones that I have spoken to tend to be biased against abortion but don’t like the idea of laws that mandate how to react in some of the edge cases.

An example of one such edge case is ectopic pregnancies (which is usually fatal). One treatment for this is a therapeutic abortion which involves an injection and sending the woman on her way. The catholic approved treatment for this when it occurs in the Fallopian tube is removing the tube (which, as I understand, is not considered an abortion in Catholicism by the principal of double effect).
 
Taestron said:
What do people think of the idea that fetus’ should gain the rights not at conception but at implantation in the womb? My ex likes to quote the statistic that over 90% of fertilized eggs do not get implanted. What do people think of this argument?
Click to expand...
It sounds interesting, and I’ve heard such high figures before. I’ve never looked into how that figure was calculated so I can only give a very unqualified opinion that the number just doesn’t feel right.

I’ve currently got no way of knowing whether or not an egg gets fertilized or not. I will say that many of my friends that engage in sex have some how managed, for the most part, to not get pregnant without contraception from most of their sexual encounters.
 
Conception.

There is no other point in time that can be as clearly delineated. If we say at birth, then what is the difference between a child 5 minutes before birth versus one 5 minutes after? None, other than environment that child is in. “Personhood” should never be based solely on the environment.
 
edwest2 said:
At conception.

epm.org/resources/2010/Mar/8/scientists-attest-life-beginning-conception/

The United States government in the Declaration of Independence tells us we have certain certain rights: "… among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

If the right to life is taken away then no other rights matter for that individual.

Finally, everyone reading this began life as a unique human being at conception.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
PERFECT, ED … 👍 👍 … Abolutely correct - Spot on! Grade A answer …
 
The only way it can be 100% sure that the entity in question is not a HUMAN, LIVING BEING is before conception. Even then, wouldn’t the sperm and egg be considered at least half a Human Being.
 
Taestron said:
… My ex likes to quote the statistic that over 90% of fertilized eggs do not get implanted. What do people think of this argument?
Click to expand...
Unless induced by drugs, this is natural, like a miscarriage. The fertilized egg in this situation does not get attacked for being what it is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top